Subject: Re: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution
From: Mitchell Baker <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:43:40 -0700

At the risk of being off-topic with Brian, I have a similar question 
about the effect of another notice or clause.

We've been looking at code which has a traditional BSD license, with the 
following sentence added:

 You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended for use in
 the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.

I don't believe this has been officially submitted to OSI for review as 
part of a BSD license, though I see other OSI-approved licenses have 
this clause (Apple, Real, Reciprocal?).  I believe the rationale is that 
this is an acknowledgment, but a limitation on use in nuclear 
facilities, and so it's OK.

Would including this clause in a BSD-license be OK?


Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> I know this list is supposed to be about reviewing proposed licenses 
> rather than speculation, but hopefully you'll at least find this 
> question more on-topic than most.
> With respect to the language at the top of:
> and for context:
> The NOTICE Sun is asking us to post seems, to me, to effectively 
> constitute an additional term of copyright.  Such a term would not 
> seem to be OSD compliant.  Empirically I can argue this easily, as no 
> open source license has been approved with such a conformance 
> requirement on derivative works (AFAIK).  The Sun Internet Standards 
> Source License comes close, but it also allows the release of 
> non-conformant works so long as the full source code to non-conformant 
> works is available.  What I need are solid sound-bite-y 
> easy-to-explain but non-dogmatic arguments as to why such a 
> conformance requirement is not compatible with the way Open Source 
> works (putting aside compatibility with any particular licenses).
> Thanks in advance,
>     Brian
> -- 
> license-discuss archive is at
license-discuss archive is at